| Title | Imposing Alfarabi on Plato: Averroes’s Novel Placement of the Platonic City |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary |
| Pages | 19–39 |
| Categories | al-Fārābī, Galen, Aristotle, Plato, Politics, Commentary |
| Author(s) | Alexander Orwin |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Averroes's Commentary on Plato's “Republic” goes far beyond merely commenting on the original. With the benefit of 1,500 years of hindsight, it reckons with important works of philosophy that would have been completely unknown to Plato. Averroes mentions three authors of such works by name: Galen, whom he mostly rebukes, Aristotle, and Alfarabi. It would be hasty to assert that by including such extraneous material, Averroes departs from Plato, but, at the very least, he updates him on account of historical developments. The importance of Averroes's post-Platonic additions is evident from the very structure of the work. The part of it that can plausibly claim to be a commentary on Plato does not begin until 27.24, almost seven pages into Rosenthal's Hebrew text. Averroes begins to address the subject of war, corresponding to Republic 374b, having skipped all of book 1 and the majority of book 2, with only two brief references to them in the opening section (CR 22.27–30, 23.31–33, cf. 47.29–30and 105.25–27). Averroes does not justify his omission until the very end of the work, when he states that the opening part of the Republic does not contain any of the demonstrative arguments of which his commentary is comprised (CR 105.25–27, cf. 21.4). He is more immediately forthright about the reasons for what he includes in its place. In keeping with the demonstrative focus of the work, Averroes replaces Platonic dialectic with a substantial discussion of science. Having divided practical science into two parts, one about general habits and actions and another about their implementation, Averroes explains: “Before we begin a point-by-point explanation of what is in these arguments [of Plato], we ought to mention the things pertinent to this [second] part [of practical science] and explained in the first part, that serve as foundation for what we wish to say here at the beginning” (CR 22.6–8). Averroes's introduction concerns above all the first part of political science, while the Republic proper contains only the second. Averroes attributes to Plato only a small part of the ensuing discussion, concerning justice, the division of labor, and the arrangement of the soul (CR 22.22–24.6, esp. 22.27, 23.31). The other passages are inspired by Aristotle and especially Alfarabi. Averroes appears to substitute scientific arguments from Aristotle and Alfarabi—mainly about science, philosophy, courage, and war—for Plato's dialectical introduction about justice and the founding of the just city. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5347","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5347,"authors_free":[{"id":6197,"entry_id":5347,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1790,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":"Alexander","free_last_name":"Orwin","norm_person":{"id":1790,"first_name":" Alexander","last_name":" Orwin","full_name":" Alexander Orwin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/1153328348","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]= Alexander Orwin"}}],"entry_title":"Imposing Alfarabi on Plato: Averroes\u2019s Novel Placement of the Platonic City","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Imposing Alfarabi on Plato: Averroes\u2019s Novel Placement of the Platonic City"},"abstract":"Averroes's Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic\u201d goes far beyond merely commenting on the original. With the benefit of 1,500 years of hindsight, it reckons with important works of philosophy that would have been completely unknown to Plato. Averroes mentions three authors of such works by name: Galen, whom he mostly rebukes, Aristotle, and Alfarabi. It would be hasty to assert that by including such extraneous material, Averroes departs from Plato, but, at the very least, he updates him on account of historical developments.\r\n\r\nThe importance of Averroes's post-Platonic additions is evident from the very structure of the work. The part of it that can plausibly claim to be a commentary on Plato does not begin until 27.24, almost seven pages into Rosenthal's Hebrew text. Averroes begins to address the subject of war, corresponding to Republic 374b, having skipped all of book 1 and the majority of book 2, with only two brief references to them in the opening section (CR 22.27\u201330, 23.31\u201333, cf. 47.29\u201330and 105.25\u201327). Averroes does not justify his omission until the very end of the work, when he states that the opening part of the Republic does not contain any of the demonstrative arguments of which his commentary is comprised (CR 105.25\u201327, cf. 21.4). He is more immediately forthright about the reasons for what he includes in its place. In keeping with the demonstrative focus of the work, Averroes replaces Platonic dialectic with a substantial discussion of science. Having divided practical science into two parts, one about general habits and actions and another about their implementation, Averroes explains: \u201cBefore we begin a point-by-point explanation of what is in these arguments [of Plato], we ought to mention the things pertinent to this [second] part [of practical science] and explained in the first part, that serve as foundation for what we wish to say here at the beginning\u201d (CR 22.6\u20138). Averroes's introduction concerns above all the first part of political science, while the Republic proper contains only the second. Averroes attributes to Plato only a small part of the ensuing discussion, concerning justice, the division of labor, and the arrangement of the soul (CR 22.22\u201324.6, esp. 22.27, 23.31). The other passages are inspired by Aristotle and especially Alfarabi. Averroes appears to substitute scientific arguments from Aristotle and Alfarabi\u2014mainly about science, philosophy, courage, and war\u2014for Plato's dialectical introduction about justice and the founding of the just city.","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983.002","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":30,"category_name":"Galen","link":"bib?categories[]=Galen"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":20,"category_name":"Plato","link":"bib?categories[]=Plato"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"}],"authors":[{"id":1790,"full_name":" Alexander Orwin","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5347,"section_of":5346,"pages":"19\u201339","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":5346,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":0,"online_url":"","online_resources":null,"translation_of":"0","new_edition_of":"0","is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"ti_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983","book":{"id":5346,"pubplace":"","publisher":" Boydell & Brewer","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"persons":[{"id":6196,"entry_id":5346,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":" Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":" Alexander","free_last_name":" Orwin","norm_person":null}]}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | Three Arabic Treatises on Aristotle’s Rhetoric: The Commentaries of al-Fârâbî, Avicenna, and Averroes |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2015 |
| Publication Place | Carbondale |
| Publisher | Southern Illinois University Press |
| Series | Landmarks in Rhetoric and Public Address |
| Categories | Rhetoric, Aristotle, al-Fārābī, Avicenna, Commentary |
| Author(s) | |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) | Lahcen Elyazghi Ezzaher |
| It is increasingly well documented that western rhetoric's journey from pagan Athens to the medieval academies of Christian Europe was significantly influenced by the intellectual thought of the Muslim Near East. Lahcen Elyazghi Ezzaher contributes to the contemporary chronicling of this influence in Three Arabic Treatises on Aristotle's Rhetoric: The Commentaries of al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, offering English translations of three landmark medieval Arabic commentaries on Aristotle's famous rhetorical treatise together in one volume for the first time. Elegant and practical, Elyazghi Ezzaher's translations give English-speaking scholars and students of rhetoric access to key medieval Arabic rhetorical texts while elucidating the unique and important contribution of those texts to the revival of European interest in the rhetoric and logic of Aristotle, which in turn influenced the rise of universities and the shaping of Western intellectual life. With a focus on Book I of Aristotle's Rhetoric, the commentaries of al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes translated by Elyazghi Ezzaher are paramount examples of an extensive Arabic-Muslim tradition of textual commentary while also serving as rich corollaries to the medieval Greek and Latin rhetorical commentaries produced in Europe. Elyazghi Ezzaher's translations are each accompanied by insightful scholarly introductions and notes that contextualize both historically and culturally these immensely significant works while highlighting a comparative, multidisciplinary approach to rhetorical scholarship that offers new perspectives on one of the fields foundational texts. A remarkable addition to rhetorical studies, Three Arabic Treatises on Aristotle's Rhetoric: The Commentaries of al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes not only provides vibrant English translations of essential medieval Arabic rhetorical texts, but it also challenges scholars and students of rhetoric to consider their own historical, cultural, and linguistic relationships to the texts and objects they study. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5262","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5262,"authors_free":[{"id":6072,"entry_id":5262,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Lahcen Elyazghi Ezzaher","free_first_name":"Lahcen Elyazghi ","free_last_name":"Ezzaher","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Three Arabic Treatises on Aristotle\u2019s Rhetoric: The Commentaries of al-F\u00e2r\u00e2b\u00ee, Avicenna, and Averroes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Three Arabic Treatises on Aristotle\u2019s Rhetoric: The Commentaries of al-F\u00e2r\u00e2b\u00ee, Avicenna, and Averroes"},"abstract":"It is increasingly well documented that western rhetoric's journey from pagan Athens to the medieval academies of Christian Europe was significantly influenced by the intellectual thought of the Muslim Near East. Lahcen Elyazghi Ezzaher contributes to the contemporary chronicling of this influence in Three Arabic Treatises on Aristotle's Rhetoric: The Commentaries of al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, offering English translations of three landmark medieval Arabic commentaries on Aristotle's famous rhetorical treatise together in one volume for the first time. Elegant and practical, Elyazghi Ezzaher's translations give English-speaking scholars and students of rhetoric access to key medieval Arabic rhetorical texts while elucidating the unique and important contribution of those texts to the revival of European interest in the rhetoric and logic of Aristotle, which in turn influenced the rise of universities and the shaping of Western intellectual life.\r\n\r\nWith a focus on Book I of Aristotle's Rhetoric, the commentaries of al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes translated by Elyazghi Ezzaher are paramount examples of an extensive Arabic-Muslim tradition of textual commentary while also serving as rich corollaries to the medieval Greek and Latin rhetorical commentaries produced in Europe. Elyazghi Ezzaher's translations are each accompanied by insightful scholarly introductions and notes that contextualize both historically and culturally these immensely significant works while highlighting a comparative, multidisciplinary approach to rhetorical scholarship that offers new perspectives on one of the fields foundational texts.\r\n\r\nA remarkable addition to rhetorical studies, Three Arabic Treatises on Aristotle's Rhetoric: The Commentaries of al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes not only provides vibrant English translations of essential medieval Arabic rhetorical texts, but it also challenges scholars and students of rhetoric to consider their own historical, cultural, and linguistic relationships to the texts and objects they study.","btype":1,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":48,"category_name":"Rhetoric","link":"bib?categories[]=Rhetoric"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":10,"category_name":"Avicenna","link":"bib?categories[]=Avicenna"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":{"id":5262,"pubplace":"Carbondale","publisher":"Southern Illinois University Press","series":"Landmarks in Rhetoric and Public Address","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2015]}
| Title | Ibn Rušd et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aperçu sur un problème de syllogistique modale |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1995 |
| Journal | Arabic Sciences and Philosophy |
| Volume | 5 |
| Pages | 51–74 |
| Categories | Logic, Alexander of Aphrodisias, al-Fārābī, Aristotle, Commentary |
| Author(s) | Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Ibn Rušd devoted a certain number of works to Aristotle's Prior Analytics. In a series of opuscules written over a period of twenty years and following upon his Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, he faced a problem particular to the modal syllogism - that of the mood of the conclusion in mixed syllogisms. The problem can be stated as follows: At the beginning of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle established a formal deductive principle - that of universal attribution (Pr. An. I.1.24b26–30). Applied to the modal syllogism, this principle is inadequate as stated. It is too general to be applied in a univocal manner in all modal syllogisms. To preserve a sense of coherence in Aristotle's declarations, the commentators had to interpret it. Presenting the interpretations of the commentators, primarily al-Fārābī and Alexander, on the basis of al-Fārābī's Large Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Averroes criticizes them. Applied according to Alexander's interpretation, the principle of universal attribution is valid only for modal syllogisms one of whose premises is necessary and the other assertoric; according to al-Fārābī's interpretation, it is verified only when the minor premise is possible. Averroes proposes two preliminary solutions. Either this formal deductive principle must be applied differently according to the modal differences of the minor premises in mixed syllogisms (first solution) or would be used in two ways, generally or in keeping with each mood (second solution). These solutions are not satisfactory, for they call into question the unity and universality of the principle of universal attribution as established by Aristotle. What is the utility, Averroes asks, of a principle which does not hold for all modalities or does not apply to all the premises when the Prior Analytics ought to furnish formal and universal principles of deduction? And why did Aristotle define the principle of universal attribution without distinguishing its application according to each of the three modal premises? Returning at the end of his career to a literal exegesis of Aristotle's propositions and without harkening back to the earlier solutions, he proposes a theory of making the terms modal (fourth solution) in order to save Aristotle's declarations with respect to the principle of universal attribution and the mood of the conclusion of mixed syllogisms (Prior Analytics I. 9.30al5–20). Though formally inadequate, this solution, which had a continued history, proposes a new way of looking at the classification of modal propositions. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"479","_score":null,"_source":{"id":479,"authors_free":[{"id":623,"entry_id":479,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":779,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","free_first_name":"Abdelali","free_last_name":"Elamrani-Jamal","norm_person":{"id":779,"first_name":"Abdelali","last_name":"Elamrani-Jamal","full_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/154697621","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/7526121","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal"}}],"entry_title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale"},"abstract":"Ibn Ru\u0161d devoted a certain number of works to Aristotle's Prior Analytics. In a series of opuscules written over a period of twenty years and following upon his Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, he faced a problem particular to the modal syllogism - that of the mood of the conclusion in mixed syllogisms. The problem can be stated as follows: At the beginning of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle established a formal deductive principle - that of universal attribution (Pr. An. I.1.24b26\u201330). Applied to the modal syllogism, this principle is inadequate as stated. It is too general to be applied in a univocal manner in all modal syllogisms. To preserve a sense of coherence in Aristotle's declarations, the commentators had to interpret it. Presenting the interpretations of the commentators, primarily al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and Alexander, on the basis of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b's Large Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Averroes criticizes them. Applied according to Alexander's interpretation, the principle of universal attribution is valid only for modal syllogisms one of whose premises is necessary and the other assertoric; according to al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b's interpretation, it is verified only when the minor premise is possible. Averroes proposes two preliminary solutions. Either this formal deductive principle must be applied differently according to the modal differences of the minor premises in mixed syllogisms (first solution) or would be used in two ways, generally or in keeping with each mood (second solution). These solutions are not satisfactory, for they call into question the unity and universality of the principle of universal attribution as established by Aristotle. What is the utility, Averroes asks, of a principle which does not hold for all modalities or does not apply to all the premises when the Prior Analytics ought to furnish formal and universal principles of deduction? And why did Aristotle define the principle of universal attribution without distinguishing its application according to each of the three modal premises? Returning at the end of his career to a literal exegesis of Aristotle's propositions and without harkening back to the earlier solutions, he proposes a theory of making the terms modal (fourth solution) in order to save Aristotle's declarations with respect to the principle of universal attribution and the mood of the conclusion of mixed syllogisms (Prior Analytics I. 9.30al5\u201320). Though formally inadequate, this solution, which had a continued history, proposes a new way of looking at the classification of modal propositions.","btype":3,"date":"1995","language":"French","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":27,"category_name":"Logic","link":"bib?categories[]=Logic"},{"id":15,"category_name":"Alexander of Aphrodisias","link":"bib?categories[]=Alexander of Aphrodisias"},{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"}],"authors":[{"id":779,"full_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":479,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"5","issue":null,"pages":"51\u201374"}},"sort":[1995]}
| Title | Ibn Rušd et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aperçu sur un problème de syllogistique modale |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1995 |
| Journal | Arabic Sciences and Philosophy |
| Volume | 5 |
| Pages | 51–74 |
| Categories | Logic, Alexander of Aphrodisias, al-Fārābī, Aristotle, Commentary |
| Author(s) | Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Ibn Rušd devoted a certain number of works to Aristotle's Prior Analytics. In a series of opuscules written over a period of twenty years and following upon his Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, he faced a problem particular to the modal syllogism - that of the mood of the conclusion in mixed syllogisms. The problem can be stated as follows: At the beginning of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle established a formal deductive principle - that of universal attribution (Pr. An. I.1.24b26–30). Applied to the modal syllogism, this principle is inadequate as stated. It is too general to be applied in a univocal manner in all modal syllogisms. To preserve a sense of coherence in Aristotle's declarations, the commentators had to interpret it. Presenting the interpretations of the commentators, primarily al-Fārābī and Alexander, on the basis of al-Fārābī's Large Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Averroes criticizes them. Applied according to Alexander's interpretation, the principle of universal attribution is valid only for modal syllogisms one of whose premises is necessary and the other assertoric; according to al-Fārābī's interpretation, it is verified only when the minor premise is possible. Averroes proposes two preliminary solutions. Either this formal deductive principle must be applied differently according to the modal differences of the minor premises in mixed syllogisms (first solution) or would be used in two ways, generally or in keeping with each mood (second solution). These solutions are not satisfactory, for they call into question the unity and universality of the principle of universal attribution as established by Aristotle. What is the utility, Averroes asks, of a principle which does not hold for all modalities or does not apply to all the premises when the Prior Analytics ought to furnish formal and universal principles of deduction? And why did Aristotle define the principle of universal attribution without distinguishing its application according to each of the three modal premises? Returning at the end of his career to a literal exegesis of Aristotle's propositions and without harkening back to the earlier solutions, he proposes a theory of making the terms modal (fourth solution) in order to save Aristotle's declarations with respect to the principle of universal attribution and the mood of the conclusion of mixed syllogisms (Prior Analytics I. 9.30al5–20). Though formally inadequate, this solution, which had a continued history, proposes a new way of looking at the classification of modal propositions. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"479","_score":null,"_source":{"id":479,"authors_free":[{"id":623,"entry_id":479,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":779,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","free_first_name":"Abdelali","free_last_name":"Elamrani-Jamal","norm_person":{"id":779,"first_name":"Abdelali","last_name":"Elamrani-Jamal","full_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/154697621","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/7526121","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal"}}],"entry_title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale"},"abstract":"Ibn Ru\u0161d devoted a certain number of works to Aristotle's Prior Analytics. In a series of opuscules written over a period of twenty years and following upon his Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, he faced a problem particular to the modal syllogism - that of the mood of the conclusion in mixed syllogisms. The problem can be stated as follows: At the beginning of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle established a formal deductive principle - that of universal attribution (Pr. An. I.1.24b26\u201330). Applied to the modal syllogism, this principle is inadequate as stated. It is too general to be applied in a univocal manner in all modal syllogisms. To preserve a sense of coherence in Aristotle's declarations, the commentators had to interpret it. Presenting the interpretations of the commentators, primarily al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and Alexander, on the basis of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b's Large Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics, Averroes criticizes them. Applied according to Alexander's interpretation, the principle of universal attribution is valid only for modal syllogisms one of whose premises is necessary and the other assertoric; according to al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b's interpretation, it is verified only when the minor premise is possible. Averroes proposes two preliminary solutions. Either this formal deductive principle must be applied differently according to the modal differences of the minor premises in mixed syllogisms (first solution) or would be used in two ways, generally or in keeping with each mood (second solution). These solutions are not satisfactory, for they call into question the unity and universality of the principle of universal attribution as established by Aristotle. What is the utility, Averroes asks, of a principle which does not hold for all modalities or does not apply to all the premises when the Prior Analytics ought to furnish formal and universal principles of deduction? And why did Aristotle define the principle of universal attribution without distinguishing its application according to each of the three modal premises? Returning at the end of his career to a literal exegesis of Aristotle's propositions and without harkening back to the earlier solutions, he proposes a theory of making the terms modal (fourth solution) in order to save Aristotle's declarations with respect to the principle of universal attribution and the mood of the conclusion of mixed syllogisms (Prior Analytics I. 9.30al5\u201320). Though formally inadequate, this solution, which had a continued history, proposes a new way of looking at the classification of modal propositions.","btype":3,"date":"1995","language":"French","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":27,"category_name":"Logic","link":"bib?categories[]=Logic"},{"id":15,"category_name":"Alexander of Aphrodisias","link":"bib?categories[]=Alexander of Aphrodisias"},{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"}],"authors":[{"id":779,"full_name":"Abdelali Elamrani-Jamal","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":479,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"5","issue":null,"pages":"51\u201374"}},"sort":["Ibn Ru\u0161d et les Premiers Analytiques d'Aristote. Aper\u00e7u sur un probl\u00e8me de syllogistique modale"]}
| Title | Imposing Alfarabi on Plato: Averroes’s Novel Placement of the Platonic City |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary |
| Pages | 19–39 |
| Categories | al-Fārābī, Galen, Aristotle, Plato, Politics, Commentary |
| Author(s) | Alexander Orwin |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Averroes's Commentary on Plato's “Republic” goes far beyond merely commenting on the original. With the benefit of 1,500 years of hindsight, it reckons with important works of philosophy that would have been completely unknown to Plato. Averroes mentions three authors of such works by name: Galen, whom he mostly rebukes, Aristotle, and Alfarabi. It would be hasty to assert that by including such extraneous material, Averroes departs from Plato, but, at the very least, he updates him on account of historical developments. The importance of Averroes's post-Platonic additions is evident from the very structure of the work. The part of it that can plausibly claim to be a commentary on Plato does not begin until 27.24, almost seven pages into Rosenthal's Hebrew text. Averroes begins to address the subject of war, corresponding to Republic 374b, having skipped all of book 1 and the majority of book 2, with only two brief references to them in the opening section (CR 22.27–30, 23.31–33, cf. 47.29–30and 105.25–27). Averroes does not justify his omission until the very end of the work, when he states that the opening part of the Republic does not contain any of the demonstrative arguments of which his commentary is comprised (CR 105.25–27, cf. 21.4). He is more immediately forthright about the reasons for what he includes in its place. In keeping with the demonstrative focus of the work, Averroes replaces Platonic dialectic with a substantial discussion of science. Having divided practical science into two parts, one about general habits and actions and another about their implementation, Averroes explains: “Before we begin a point-by-point explanation of what is in these arguments [of Plato], we ought to mention the things pertinent to this [second] part [of practical science] and explained in the first part, that serve as foundation for what we wish to say here at the beginning” (CR 22.6–8). Averroes's introduction concerns above all the first part of political science, while the Republic proper contains only the second. Averroes attributes to Plato only a small part of the ensuing discussion, concerning justice, the division of labor, and the arrangement of the soul (CR 22.22–24.6, esp. 22.27, 23.31). The other passages are inspired by Aristotle and especially Alfarabi. Averroes appears to substitute scientific arguments from Aristotle and Alfarabi—mainly about science, philosophy, courage, and war—for Plato's dialectical introduction about justice and the founding of the just city. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5347","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5347,"authors_free":[{"id":6197,"entry_id":5347,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1790,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":"Alexander","free_last_name":"Orwin","norm_person":{"id":1790,"first_name":" Alexander","last_name":" Orwin","full_name":" Alexander Orwin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/1153328348","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]= Alexander Orwin"}}],"entry_title":"Imposing Alfarabi on Plato: Averroes\u2019s Novel Placement of the Platonic City","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Imposing Alfarabi on Plato: Averroes\u2019s Novel Placement of the Platonic City"},"abstract":"Averroes's Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic\u201d goes far beyond merely commenting on the original. With the benefit of 1,500 years of hindsight, it reckons with important works of philosophy that would have been completely unknown to Plato. Averroes mentions three authors of such works by name: Galen, whom he mostly rebukes, Aristotle, and Alfarabi. It would be hasty to assert that by including such extraneous material, Averroes departs from Plato, but, at the very least, he updates him on account of historical developments.\r\n\r\nThe importance of Averroes's post-Platonic additions is evident from the very structure of the work. The part of it that can plausibly claim to be a commentary on Plato does not begin until 27.24, almost seven pages into Rosenthal's Hebrew text. Averroes begins to address the subject of war, corresponding to Republic 374b, having skipped all of book 1 and the majority of book 2, with only two brief references to them in the opening section (CR 22.27\u201330, 23.31\u201333, cf. 47.29\u201330and 105.25\u201327). Averroes does not justify his omission until the very end of the work, when he states that the opening part of the Republic does not contain any of the demonstrative arguments of which his commentary is comprised (CR 105.25\u201327, cf. 21.4). He is more immediately forthright about the reasons for what he includes in its place. In keeping with the demonstrative focus of the work, Averroes replaces Platonic dialectic with a substantial discussion of science. Having divided practical science into two parts, one about general habits and actions and another about their implementation, Averroes explains: \u201cBefore we begin a point-by-point explanation of what is in these arguments [of Plato], we ought to mention the things pertinent to this [second] part [of practical science] and explained in the first part, that serve as foundation for what we wish to say here at the beginning\u201d (CR 22.6\u20138). Averroes's introduction concerns above all the first part of political science, while the Republic proper contains only the second. Averroes attributes to Plato only a small part of the ensuing discussion, concerning justice, the division of labor, and the arrangement of the soul (CR 22.22\u201324.6, esp. 22.27, 23.31). The other passages are inspired by Aristotle and especially Alfarabi. Averroes appears to substitute scientific arguments from Aristotle and Alfarabi\u2014mainly about science, philosophy, courage, and war\u2014for Plato's dialectical introduction about justice and the founding of the just city.","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983.002","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":30,"category_name":"Galen","link":"bib?categories[]=Galen"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":20,"category_name":"Plato","link":"bib?categories[]=Plato"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"}],"authors":[{"id":1790,"full_name":" Alexander Orwin","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5347,"section_of":5346,"pages":"19\u201339","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":5346,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":0,"online_url":"","online_resources":null,"translation_of":"0","new_edition_of":"0","is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"ti_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983","book":{"id":5346,"pubplace":"","publisher":" Boydell & Brewer","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"persons":[{"id":6196,"entry_id":5346,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":" Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":" Alexander","free_last_name":" Orwin","norm_person":null}]}},"article":null},"sort":["Imposing Alfarabi on Plato: Averroes\u2019s Novel Placement of the Platonic City"]}
| Title | Three Arabic Treatises on Aristotle’s Rhetoric: The Commentaries of al-Fârâbî, Avicenna, and Averroes |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2015 |
| Publication Place | Carbondale |
| Publisher | Southern Illinois University Press |
| Series | Landmarks in Rhetoric and Public Address |
| Categories | Rhetoric, Aristotle, al-Fārābī, Avicenna, Commentary |
| Author(s) | |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) | Lahcen Elyazghi Ezzaher |
| It is increasingly well documented that western rhetoric's journey from pagan Athens to the medieval academies of Christian Europe was significantly influenced by the intellectual thought of the Muslim Near East. Lahcen Elyazghi Ezzaher contributes to the contemporary chronicling of this influence in Three Arabic Treatises on Aristotle's Rhetoric: The Commentaries of al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, offering English translations of three landmark medieval Arabic commentaries on Aristotle's famous rhetorical treatise together in one volume for the first time. Elegant and practical, Elyazghi Ezzaher's translations give English-speaking scholars and students of rhetoric access to key medieval Arabic rhetorical texts while elucidating the unique and important contribution of those texts to the revival of European interest in the rhetoric and logic of Aristotle, which in turn influenced the rise of universities and the shaping of Western intellectual life. With a focus on Book I of Aristotle's Rhetoric, the commentaries of al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes translated by Elyazghi Ezzaher are paramount examples of an extensive Arabic-Muslim tradition of textual commentary while also serving as rich corollaries to the medieval Greek and Latin rhetorical commentaries produced in Europe. Elyazghi Ezzaher's translations are each accompanied by insightful scholarly introductions and notes that contextualize both historically and culturally these immensely significant works while highlighting a comparative, multidisciplinary approach to rhetorical scholarship that offers new perspectives on one of the fields foundational texts. A remarkable addition to rhetorical studies, Three Arabic Treatises on Aristotle's Rhetoric: The Commentaries of al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes not only provides vibrant English translations of essential medieval Arabic rhetorical texts, but it also challenges scholars and students of rhetoric to consider their own historical, cultural, and linguistic relationships to the texts and objects they study. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5262","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5262,"authors_free":[{"id":6072,"entry_id":5262,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Lahcen Elyazghi Ezzaher","free_first_name":"Lahcen Elyazghi ","free_last_name":"Ezzaher","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Three Arabic Treatises on Aristotle\u2019s Rhetoric: The Commentaries of al-F\u00e2r\u00e2b\u00ee, Avicenna, and Averroes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Three Arabic Treatises on Aristotle\u2019s Rhetoric: The Commentaries of al-F\u00e2r\u00e2b\u00ee, Avicenna, and Averroes"},"abstract":"It is increasingly well documented that western rhetoric's journey from pagan Athens to the medieval academies of Christian Europe was significantly influenced by the intellectual thought of the Muslim Near East. Lahcen Elyazghi Ezzaher contributes to the contemporary chronicling of this influence in Three Arabic Treatises on Aristotle's Rhetoric: The Commentaries of al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, offering English translations of three landmark medieval Arabic commentaries on Aristotle's famous rhetorical treatise together in one volume for the first time. Elegant and practical, Elyazghi Ezzaher's translations give English-speaking scholars and students of rhetoric access to key medieval Arabic rhetorical texts while elucidating the unique and important contribution of those texts to the revival of European interest in the rhetoric and logic of Aristotle, which in turn influenced the rise of universities and the shaping of Western intellectual life.\r\n\r\nWith a focus on Book I of Aristotle's Rhetoric, the commentaries of al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes translated by Elyazghi Ezzaher are paramount examples of an extensive Arabic-Muslim tradition of textual commentary while also serving as rich corollaries to the medieval Greek and Latin rhetorical commentaries produced in Europe. Elyazghi Ezzaher's translations are each accompanied by insightful scholarly introductions and notes that contextualize both historically and culturally these immensely significant works while highlighting a comparative, multidisciplinary approach to rhetorical scholarship that offers new perspectives on one of the fields foundational texts.\r\n\r\nA remarkable addition to rhetorical studies, Three Arabic Treatises on Aristotle's Rhetoric: The Commentaries of al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes not only provides vibrant English translations of essential medieval Arabic rhetorical texts, but it also challenges scholars and students of rhetoric to consider their own historical, cultural, and linguistic relationships to the texts and objects they study.","btype":1,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":48,"category_name":"Rhetoric","link":"bib?categories[]=Rhetoric"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":28,"category_name":"al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},{"id":10,"category_name":"Avicenna","link":"bib?categories[]=Avicenna"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":{"id":5262,"pubplace":"Carbondale","publisher":"Southern Illinois University Press","series":"Landmarks in Rhetoric and Public Address","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Three Arabic Treatises on Aristotle\u2019s Rhetoric: The Commentaries of al-F\u00e2r\u00e2b\u00ee, Avicenna, and Averroes"]}